The preceding chapters have shown how LKMS was instrumental in
the management of natural resources by local people, and how these techniques
and systems have, or have not, changed in the past decades. Furthermore, their
value for designing and implementing development assistance has been
demonstrated through the experiences of several recent and not so recent
projects. This chapter addresses the question of what needs to be done to
effectively incorporate LKMS into the development process.

Consideration is first given to developing a methodology for
collecting and analyzing information on LKMS, followed by a look at some
potential applications of LKMS in the realm of social forestry and natural
resource management. A third section discusses some of the prerequisites: what
needs to be done on a policy and institution-building level before LKMS can
effectively be incorporated? And finally, certain gaps in our knowledge of both
the content and the value of LKMS are highlighted.

6.1 Methodology for the analysis of
LKMS

A main reason why LKMS is seen as a means to further popular
participation in development activities is that in every step of the way -
collection of data, analysis of its significance, incorporation of data into
technical and managerial solutions, implementation of activities, etc. - the
involvement of the local people is a necessary factor.

Some experiences in the past show how it is possible to be
willing to incorporate LKMS into the development process, but still fail due to
faulty data collection. For example, in 1921 the District Commissioner of
northeastern Uganda wanted to draw county lines according to traditional
territorial boundaries. However, by conducting his survey in the wet season, a
lot of dry season pastures were declared unoccupied and given to
tribes who had no traditional rights in the area. This led to increasing
hostility in the area, and contributed to the destruction of traditional
organization1.

Data collection on the LKMS of natural resource management
cannot be concerned solely with physical matters, but must also look at the
socio-economic and institutional aspects. The classic type of socio-economic
survey, based on questionnaires administered to a random number of people, is
not sufficient by itself and cannot show the logic behind production systems. An
integrated survey method must find the specific aspects and constraints facing
the decision-maker, and determine which information is actually used to make the
decision, and which information is unused but may nevertheless be given to
interviewer. Such a survey method requires active participation by the local
people and daily observation of the production routine by the
researcher².

Data collection on the physical aspects must go beyond land
use, botanical, pedological, and other classical surveys, to how the people
perceive their environment, and which aspects of the physical resources are
filtered through into their decision-making process. For example, many
ethnotaxonomies and other cognitive studies of ethnoecology tend to be too
exhaustive; one needs to always ask what is the value of this information to the
local people's actual behavior and strategies - is the information reflecting an
ideal or a norm?³ Environmental perception surveys should consider, among
other things, the perceived value of resources for their livestock and other
production activities4, the choice of indicators for predicting
environmental dynamics, their knowledge of the spatial and temporal variability
of resources (and their standard deviations), etc. Environmental cognition
surveys, including cognitive maps, are useful for obtaining these types of
information, since they show how the people characterize their landscape, and
which of its parts they consider important or prominent. Some researchers,
mostly in the late 1960's, have already studied spatial cognition in the African
context5. The method, as carried out among the Maasai6,
obligates the researcher to accompany the herder into the field.

Other types of surveys on LKMS are aimed at collecting data on
decision making processes and logic, fundamental paradigms of knowledge (e.g.
how the physical world is ordered and related to the social world), means of
coping with risk and uncertainty, manual and mental skills,
etc.7.

The data collection methodology should be an iterative process
that starts with a pilot survey to test the survey method, observes activities
related to the survey in order to verify the survey method, modifies the survey
method, and finally does the full survey. Four types of survey methods may need
to be carried out for the same project: 1) specification surveys,
where the highest level of detail is needed on some aspects; usually the most
knowledgeable persons are interviewed; 2) formalization surveys,
where one makes sure that all knowledge is covered; usually one will need to
contact a wider range of people, and to randomize the sample; 3)
generalization surveys, where non-specialized information is needed
to make sure that data represents a wider population; and 4)
verification surveys, where the data is re-collected or compared
with existing information, etc.8 (see BOX 6.1).

BOX 6.1

C.G. Knight (1980)9 has provided a concise listing
of survey methods used in the study of LKMS. Specification surveys include
informal discussions with the most knowledgeable person(s), participant
observations, informal/semi-formal interviews, questionnaires, and teacher-pupil
relations where the informant is the teacher.

Formalization surveys include paired comparison (e.g. between
ideal and norm, or between traditional and modern techniques, and then asking
people to explain the differences10), tree drawing (flow-charts with
yes/no dichotomies)11, slip sorting (sorting diagrams of plants,
soils or other resources according to what they have in common), eliciting
dictionary definitions, triad tests, gaming approaches, and group discussions.
Triad tests are used to show and explain differences and similarities between
objects, such as plant species, soil types, etc. These tests can become too
exhausting if there are too many things to compare, therefore they are often
combined with other methods12. For example, triad tests have been
used to compare the taxonomy and classification of body parts among Maasai,
Kikuyu and Americans, as a way to facilitate cross-cultural
communication13. The gaming approach (i.e. lets imagine
conversations) are useful in stimulating discussion on some central theme (e.g.
droughts, bush fires, etc.). They are valuable because the respondents use their
own opinions and logic rather than the interviewer's14. Group
discussions are especially useful in the pastoral context. They increase our
understanding of the dynamics of communal decision making, since it is often
arrived at by a consensus within the group15.

Generalization surveys use formal questionnaires, ranking
tests, and sentence completion exercises. Verification surveys usually involve a
return to the same population to observe and compare behavior at a later date,
to translate and re-translate the information, to extrapolate from the data to
other situations and ask again (gaming approach), and to actually use the data
on a trial run (e.g. technical details of the production routine are actually
tried out in the field).

We also need to go beyond the classical approach of surveying
only the local people, to surveying both them and the extension agents and
scientists with the same or similar techniques. This approach would help to
identify differences in perception, and to stimulate discussion between the two
sides16.

Apart from an appropriate methodology for collecting
information on LKMS, we also need to develop a framework for analysis that
highlights local ideas that are obstacles to those change that are necessary,
and identifies local ideas that are realistic appraisals of, and realistic
solutions to environmental problems17. Because of the high
heterogeneity in LKMS (both within and between groups), and the fact that the
social and physical environment is rapidly changing, the final test of the value
of a local technique or system for development will only be when it is actually
used on a trial basis in a pilot project. For example, the viability of a local
technique or system, and its value for development, can be evaluated through a
process whereby the LKMS and formal scientific outlooks and objectives are
compared and combined through discussions between the local people and extension
agents, during or after the data collection stage. In addition, these
discussions should help identify whether a particular LKMS is still remembered
and in use, by all or only a few people.

6.2 Potential
applications

Only relatively few projects and programs have incorporated
LKMS into their designs - some of these have been briefly described in the
previous chapter. However, many field researchers and workers have proposed and
recommended a diverse portfolio of potential applications for LKMS. These can be
grouped under several project-types.

The first, and perhaps the most important type is the use of
local knowledge and social structures in development planning. This can either
be done through discussions with the target people during the
project formulation stage, or through regional, national and even international
workshops. In the case of the former, the short period allotted to project
formulation by the donors must be extended to a flexible period that allows the
local people to fit in the time required for discussions and decision-making
with their production and social schedule.

Workshops have been used recently to help local people
identify their development constraints and to communicate these to government
and donor agencies. For example, a recent regional NGO workshop, entitled
Survival in the Drylands held in Mali, was aimed at strengthening
cooperation between NGOs in the Sahel and drawing up an action plan to combat
land degradation and to assess the impact of local and national dryland
policies18. Workshops have also been organized for local people
without the existence of an umbrella NGO. For example, a UNEP workshop held in
May 1986 brought together pastoralists from four different tribes in Kenya for
discussions across ethnic lines as well as across local/scientific lines. A
follow-up workshop and field visit was later organized, this time including two
additional ethnic groups19.

A second type of applied LKMS is aimed at the education
system. For example, inclusion of the history of the tribe into formal history
lessons would help the student establish his people's role and relationships to
the outside world. In addition, local concepts of measurement and mathematics
(see section 2.1.2.8) can be used to teach modern math20.

Many authors have proposed the use of local social structures
(see section 2.2.2) as the basis for new organizational institutions. In the
case of pastoral associations (herders' associations, group ranches, etc.), most
researchers suggest that the relevant socio-political level should be the
herding unit rather than higher (larger) associations21, because the
herding unit is usually a tighter cooperating unit, can be identified more
precisely with a given land area, and is easier to manage because of its smaller
size. However, the problem of higher fluidity remains: the members of a herding
unit do not necessarily remain the same from year to year, whereas membership in
higher social levels, such as a clan or tribe, is more constant.

Many technical details of LKMS appear to be still viable and
can be used to develop locally appropriate solutions to environmental problems.
For example, the knowledge of trees and browse, and the traditional protection
of spontaneously regenerated seedlings (see section 2.2.3) can be used in
reforestation projects, such as those proposed for the Pokot and
Turkana22. The traditional range management system, such as rotation
schedules and deferment periods (see section 2.2.2), can be modified with
Western range techniques to develop a system more appropriate to current
rangeland shortages and droughts. In addition, analysis of the traditional range
system - for example, where it lies on the continuum between year-round,
continuous grazing and rotation grazing - can direct the design of new systems
and shorten the period needed for research and trials. The recruitment of
herders as primary level veterinarians in various projects has also shown one
venue for the use of local veterinary knowledge23.

Another area where LKMS can be useful is in environmental
monitoring programs. One aim of most of these programs is to identify when and
how the local people have to change their resource exploitation strategies to
avoid or minimize environmental damage. Using local methods of monitoring (see
section 2.2.2.2), alongside Western ones, would facilitate the communication of
the results with the people, and help convince them of the need for change. In
addition, local people could assist researchers in conducting the monitoring
exercise. Local observers could record vegetation changes as part of an early
warning systems for environmental degradation, locusts and pests, and farmers
could report crop yields for census and monitor the results of on-farm
experiments24. Herders could report on disease epidemics, help police
the boundaries of group ranches against outsiders, and in general help ensure
compliance with range management plans and controls. Although local observers
need to be backstopped by extension agents, they could allow a saving on the
project's manpower and logistical support especially in remote pastoral
areas.

The local knowledge of environmental dynamics (see section
2.1.2), in conjunction with that of formal science, can be used as short cuts
for resource inventories, such as the distribution of soil and vegetation
types25. Local concepts of measurement can be used by local observers
to conduct some forms of research for formal scientists, especially if the
standard deviation of traditional units can be ascertained beforehand. Areas
that are still being managed well by the traditional system, could be delimited
as research stations in order to recognize the value of traditional
knowledge, and prevent its untimely demise26. These research stations
can then be used to experiment with modifying and improving the traditional
system and extrapolating the lessons to other areas.

6.3 Prerequisites

Paying lip service to the need to incorporate LKMS into
development designs can be just as bad as paying lip service to popular
participation. Too many projects have tacked on a research on LKMS
phase as an after thought, resulting in volumes of interesting but too
exhaustive and inappropriate research reports, which are then filed and not used
by project designers and implementors. LKMS needs to be incorporated effectively
into the development process, but to do so would require certain preliminary
changes in the process.

For example, project planning should be accompanied with a
flexible timetable for discussions with local people, pre-formulation action
research designed to identify promising and viable LKMS, and a joint (local and
outsider) project formulation process.

Another problem is that Western experts and Western-trained
Africans are trained not to see LKMS as potentially useful. The general attitude
is that formal science is superior to LKMS, thus there is very little political
will to incorporate LKMS into the development process27. Many
government officials, accustomed to a paternalistic one-way mode of
communication, become impatient at the prospect of using popular
participation and LKMS28. Extensive discussions at the level of
policy-makers (government officials and donor representatives) and national and
international scientists will need to highlight previous successes with LKMS. At
the level of extension agents, similar discussions need to be accompanied with a
change in extension training programs, such as incorporating LKMS subjects into
term papers, theses, etc., and training on an appropriate methodology for data
collection29. The local people too will need to change their
attitude, especially those groups who have seen too many failed projects and
have come to expect only top-down interaction with governments and donor
agencies.

Certain government policies that affect arid lands and
pastoralists in particular also need to be changed. The most notable are land
tenure laws, the absence of land use planning and enforcement, economic
incentives that pull young herders off the range, urban-oriented education
systems, etc. In addition, strict environmental impact studies should be
required of all projects by the Governments. These studies should make a point
of going beyond physical aspects to impacts on the social and production
systems, and in particular, their underlying LKMS30.

6.4 Recommended follow-up
activities

Apart from elucidating the many different types of LKMS that
may be of eventual use to the development process, this paper has also served to
point out some of the gaps in our understanding of the LKMS of natural resource
management in arid and semi-arid Africa. Several follow-up actions can be
suggested.

Certain topics within LKMS seem to be more neglected than
others. For example, the descriptive knowledge of how and when natural resources
are harvested, stored and processed is less well known than what the resources
are used for. Furthermore, our understanding of how climatic changes and other
ecological dynamics are predicted is far less than how the different resources
are labelled and classified. In other words, more research is needed to
highlight those aspects of LKMS directly useful for the management of natural
resources.

Daily management practices, as a whole, also tend to be less
well known than descriptive knowledge and organizational structures. Studies of
range management practices need to go beyond simple descriptions of seasonal
movements, to details on the frequency of movements, duration of sojourns, and
other rotational practices. Traditional range improvement techniques also need
to be identified in order to find a local base on which to build new improvement
and revegetation techniques. The internal organization of herders and herding
units is another neglected topic, without which it would be difficult if not
impossible to revive traditional techniques or to introduce new ones. In
particular, the role of women herders needs to be clarified.

Our knowledge of tree and shrub management among pastoralists
is much weaker than among farmers in more humid areas. More details are needed
on how they harvest browse, tannin and other products (cutting techniques,
frequency of cuts and duration of rest, quantities harvested, etc.), and how
they protect and regenerate trees and shrubs.

We are gradually becoming aware of the tremendous diversity in
land and resource tenure types across Africa. There are many different types of
communal resource tenure, including reserved areas and sacred groves, each of
which have different implications for resource management. To illustrate, take
the case of the Turkana in Kenya. It was only after about 20 years of detailed
research, that the existence of private, household-owned trees and sections of
riverbeds came to light. The fault was not in the research per se, but the fact
that the earlier work had been done almost exclusively among those Turkana
living in more humid areas in the south, while the private tree tenure was found
among the northern Turkana living in more arid areas31. Thus,
although quite a bit may appear to have been done on resource tenure so far,
more studies need to be commissioned to unearth inter-tribal and intra-tribal
variations.

Pure, exhaustive research on LKMS may be of academic interest,
but would be a waste of development finances. As far as possible action
research, ie. the identification of potentially useful LKMS and, when
appropriate, the incorporation of the LKMS into trials and experiments, should
be the preferred type of research. A compendium of potentially useful LKMS
should be accompanied by an evaluation of their value for development. To do so
would require a framework or guidelines for analyzing their viability and how
they could be modified or revived. While the development of such a framework
will be facilitated as more and more projects experiment with LKMS, a workshop
bringing together development workers involved with LKMS will help to pave the
way for it.

A few case studies can be suggested. Certain groups and
countries of arid and semi-arid Africa appear to be under-represented in the
English and French literature. More work needs to be focused on them, either in
the form of field research, or the translation of literature written in other
languages. Some examples are Angola and early Italian work done in Somalia,
Ethiopia and Libya. Other groups and countries have particularly interesting
forms of LKMS that have direct impact on development, or may be useful for
extrapolation to other neighbouring groups. A few examples are, the intricate
water management structure of the Borana of southern Ethiopia, the role of women
herders among the Somali, the emergence of private range enclosures in Sudan and
Somalia, the rotational range use of the Wodaabe Fulani, the current viability
of the range controls devised by the Macina Fulani, differences in herding style
between the Twareg and the Fulani, the range tenure arrangements of the Tonga of
Zambia, and the Kgotla meetings of the people of Botswana. Finally, particular
attention can be paid to those groups that have traditional range reserves and
sacred groves, such as in Zambia, Kenya, Botswana, Mali, Burkina Faso and
Morocco.